Despite
McCain-Feingold, the Money Keeps Rolling InThere’s a reason why
the McCain-Feingold bill was beloved by politicians. It’s the same
reason neither John McCain nor Russ Feingold will answer direct
questions about the effect of their legislation as it becomes live.
McCain-Feingold didn’t work. When one conduit of cash is closed, money
will still get to the candidates and to the process, as Bush, Dean and
most of Congress have shown us. From the new soft money ideals and check
bundling to 527 accounts and convention donations, political money is
still political money – and it’s still buying influence. Even the
champions of reform are using these methods to ensure a steady cash
flow.

McCain-Feingold Flop

Dean's method of fundraising is within the
spirit of McCain Feingold, say activist groups. But a caution is the
amount of money pouring into the Boston convention.

Despite McCain-Feingold, the Money
Keeps Rolling In

[December 22, 2003 evote.com]
President Theodore Roosevelt
tried to improve it about a century ago. So did President Harry Truman. Congress
took a swing at in 1974. And last year another bill addressing the same issue
was signed by a U.S. President.

But yet again some are deeming it
just an improvement with no home run, even among its febrile creators. It is
called campaign finance reform and its flagship Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act
of 2002 (known as BCRA or McCain-Feingold), which according to some is nigh to a
failure. It is the perennial battle against the use of money from particular
groups or citizens, especially corporate and union funds, to influence
legislation away from what may be the common good and toward those who provide
what is a de facto legal bribe. Often it is a campaign donor’s desire to place
specific politicians on particular committees.

The candidates, ever eager for
crucial money to win election, have sought out alternative means not addressed
by the recent law to campaign and raise funds--and are doing so at record
levels. When one conduit of cash is closed, the candidates simply emphasize
other methods to try and satiate their insatiability. And this is nothing new.
As BCRA sponsor Rep. Christopher Shays (R-CT), tells EVOTE.COM, “soft money
became campaign money” because (direct) corporate and union money were outlawed
during the last century. “Candidates are always looking for ways to circumvent
the law,” remarked Shays. The Federal Election Commission is “weakening” the law
by the way they are writing the BCRA (McCain-Feingold) regulations.

Commissioners of the FEC disagree
as to whether the commission’s regulations are weakening McCain-Feingold. Up
until now, Shays says, “the law has worked well,” but he warns, “the jury is
still out.”

Politicians Knew
McCain-Feingold Would Not Work
The McCain-Feingold Bill may only have passed because the politicians knew they
could circumvent its intent—to end the purchase and sale of politicians, to end
political corruption—which continues unabated. Some politicians believed BCRA
would later be ruled unconstitutional when they voted in favor of it, thinking
it would eventually be struck down by the United States Supreme Court. (Many
political observers were staggered recently when the Supreme Court barely upheld
key components of BCRA, including its prohibition on some television political
advertising, some calling it a blatant stifling of free speech.)

Some politicians probably
predicted key parts of McCain-Feingold would be nullified, spurring them to vote
in favor of passage. This tactic has been long been used by American politicians
to obtain approval by the voters. It is a game they continually play at both the
state and federal level; passing bills they believe in advance are
unconstitutional.

To reform the campaign system,
those who accept campaign funds must write a bill that stops them from doing
exactly what they want to continue doing--to end the very process that helps get
them continually re-elected. And since the use of money has already been deemed
by the Supreme Court as a crucial part of free speech guaranteed by the
constitution, reforming campaigns has been made even more difficult by the right
to speak freely, a right politicians ostensibly say they cherish.

Bush's stratospheric fundraising has
raised the stakes for Democrats hoping for the nomination. (Kucinich
doesn't count.)

BCRA Components
Essentially BCRA completely bans soft money to the national political parties.
Unlimited contributions had been allowed previously. It also permits a doubling
to $2,000 individual contributions to particular campaigns. McCain-Feingold also
places restrictions on outside groups from airing so-called "issue ads" that
tout or negatively criticize a candidate’s position on any issue, but refrains
from explicitly telling viewers to vote for or against that candidate. Groups
may not use corporate and union treasury money for these broadcast
communications that mention a Federal candidate within 60 days of a general
election, or 30 days of a primary, and are targeted at the candidate's
electorate. But unions and corporations can still finance these ads through
their Political Action Committees.

According to Opensecrets.org,
President Bush, even without a primary challenger and until recently enjoying
high approval ratings, has raised upwards of $84 million, with a predicted
stratospheric final total of $200 million.

Dean now has $25 million and
Kerry $20 million. Campaign contributions levels in this post McCain-Feingold
environment could set new highs, with the use of the internet playing a major
fund-raising role, especially with Howard Dean. The former Vermont governor
raised the bulk of his contributions with a small $77 average contribution.

Boyle says Dean’s method to raise
money is a better way to do it, citing the paucity of extremely large corporate
or individual soft-money contributors typical of most influential campaigns of
years past.

She adds that since the number of
contributors is high, with donations relatively low for Dean’s campaign, the
folks providing the money represent a more diverse electorate in terms of which
direction they want the candidate to vote, allowing him relatively more freedom
from the donor’s wishes. Indeed, candidates who raise large sums in small doses
may not even know the reasons why some gave money to them at all, which is not
the case for those providing tens of thousands, or millions of greenbacks, as is
the case this year with Bush.

The Money Keeps Pouring
In
Mary Boyle, a spokesperson for Common Cause, a Washington D.C.-based lobbying
group that supports reducing campaign donations from special-interests, says
reform of the presidential primaries is now needed, as candidates George Bush,
Howard Dean and John Kerry have declined matching public campaign funds that
would have capped their spending at $45 million. They became the first
significant modern presidential candidates to opt out and aim for large amounts
of private donations. So without a vote cast, the 2004 election is already
remarkable for beginning the collapse of the Watergate-era restraints. We now
have an uninhibited money bazaar powered by gilt-edged fundraising parties.

Rep. Marty Meehan (D-MA), a BCRA
sponsor, says the presidential primary matching fund system is broken. He is
proposing campaign financing changes by sponsoring with others a new bill.

The Check Bundlers
According to Common Cause, corporate money is now pouring in to the Bush
campaign like water from a Roman aqueduct—exactly what McCain-Feingold was
supposed to curb--and what is most disturbing is that it is totally legal. It
demonstrates how ineffectual BCRA is. And the name for this legal process, this
expedient method of avoiding campaign finance reform laws, is called bundling
checks.

James H. ‘Buck’ Harless, founder
and chairman of International Industries of Gilbert, West Virginia is a check
bundler. Starting in 1999 he began enlisting his mining-industry good-ole-boys
to give to the Bush campaign. He gathered the checks together and gave his good
friend $355,000. In return Harless received new markets for his coal.

Then there is Steven Letbetter,
former chief executive officer of Reliant Resources of Houston, Texas. He also
bundled checks together worth a total of $213,000 from his corporate buddies and
gave it to Bush. Companies like the one he represented were seeking a favorable
energy bill. In another case, Frederick L. Webber, former president of the
American Chemistry Council of Arlington Virginia, gave Bush $221,000 for
favorable legislation. There is also A.R. “Tony” Sanchez, owner of Sanchez Oil &
Gas Corporation of Laredo, Texas, who gave $100,000 for Bush’s support. Those
who show up and deliver large amounts of bundled checks get special treatment,
says Boyle of Common Cause.

And the deluge is not just for
Bush, but he may be leading. For the first six months of this year, the
Republican National Committee and House and Senate GOP campaign committees
together raised $139 million, while the Democrats gathered $56 million. By
comparison, in the same period of the last presidential election cycle, the
elephants raised $66 million to the donkeys $38 million – definitely something’s
been reformed here.

Staff members of both Sens. John
McCain (R-AZ) and Russ Feingold (D-WI) are so embarrassed by this situation they
refuse to answer any questions about their bill.

But listen to how Scott
Harshbarger, the former president of Common Cause, refers to McCain-Feingold
about the time it became law. According to him, the bill is the second coming of
Christ.

“By signing McCain-Feingold,
President Bush has recognized the need to end the worst abuse in our political
system,” said Harshbarger. Scott “Mr. Reform” Harshbarger goes on to say,
“Americans have won an historic victory to help bring our government back to the
people. After years of debate, the Senate has voted resoundingly, 60-40, to end
the most corrupting part of our system.”

Guess who maintains 527 committees? Yup,
most of the Democrats running for President of the U.S.

It’s Not Just the Size of
Campaign War Chests
But if you think the buying and selling of politicians stops with simple
donations, think again. In this post McCain-Feingold environment, new ways to
influence campaigns are now being emphasized. Think of the number 527, as in the
sometimes obscure tax-exempt groups known by an Internal Revenue Service code as
527 committees. These 527s are allowed huge campaign reporting advantages. They
are reaping an increasing fortune in political cash even with the ban on certain
interest-group ads days before elections.

Some experts such as Chris Shays
say that soft money that would have flowed to political parties now replete the
bank accounts of 527s or 501s. These include 527s such as the labor-supported
Partnership for America’s Families and the pharmaceutical-industry backed United
Seniors Association. Democrat investor George Soros has pledged to raise $10
million for one such group determined to defeat George Bush’s re-election bid.
And tracking the sources and uses of 527 money is quite difficult.

"Due to their unique legal
status, 527 committees are almost totally free from fund-raising restrictions
while still being able to engage in just about any election-related activity
short of contributing to federal candidates," states the Washington D.C.- based
Center for Public Integrity in a July report. Upwards of $430 million have been
spent by 527s during the past three years. Just 22 of the groups raised upwards
of $3.3 million within the first few months of 2003. Among the more famous 527
groups include Emily’s List of Washington D.C. which promotes pro-abortion
Democratic women candidates and the Republican and Democratic governors
associations.

Four presidential candidates,
U.S. Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-MO), Sens. John Edwards (D-NC), Bob Graham (D-FL),
and John Kerry (D-MA) all maintain 527 committees. Kerry’s Citizen Soldier Fund
gave upwards of $256,000 to party groups and candidates in Iowa, New Hampshire
and South Carolina, all early presidential primary battlegrounds.

And the tax-exempt pro-Republican
Committee for Justice has run television commercials attacking Edwards. Part of
its money to pay for the ads was raised at the home of George Bush number one.

These self-described
"independent" organizations from both sides of the political aisle are stepping
in to fill the vacuum from the reduction of soft-money going to the national
political parties.

Rep. John L. Mica (R-FL) has
called the growth of the 527s "the greatest threat to the federal election
process we have ever seen."

Conventions are Involved
Too
And Shays says soft money is flowing into next year’s presidential-nominating
conventions in Boston and New York too, yet another method to avoid
McCain-Feingold regulations. Corporations and well-heeled donors are allowed to
write million dollar checks to defray the expenses of the conventions; or should
I call them wine-fueled propaganda parties.

Organizers are offering
‘sponsorships’ to businesses with a $1 million asking price for one in
particular. A donation of $100,000 to Boston’s gets you a breakfast with the
nominee and “a chance to help shape the national political agenda.” The Campaign
Finance Institute at George Washington University in Washington D.C. estimates
that upwards of $64 million will be contributed to Boston’s convention. U.S.
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) has taken a particular interest in raising money for his
hometown convention.

Sanctimonious Reformers?
Even the ‘champions’ of reform are doing an end-run around the new laws. The
President of Common Cause, Chellie Pingree, is facing allegations that she
violated federal election laws in her Democratic race for the US Senate last
year. In her unsuccessful bid to unseat Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), Pingree
invited donors to circumvent the limits on campaign contributions. She is the
target of an FEC audit, and election law specialists say at least one of her
solicitations was illegal.

Even Rep. Marty Meehan, a
vehement supporter of campaign finance reform, had more than $1.8 million
stashed away in his campaign war chest as of June 30, putting him at number six
of all congressional incumbents with the most cash available.

[John Pike is a veteran
journalist based in Boston. His articles have appeared in numerous magazines,
newspapers and web sites, including the Boston Globe, Reason Magazine and
Insight Magazine. He is now trying to figure out the best way to give as much
money as possible to his favorite candidate so he can obtain a lucrative
government job. ]

Dean's method of fundraising is within the spirit of McCain Feingold, say
activist groups. But a caution is the amount of money pouring into the Boston
convention.

Dean's method of fundraising is within the
spirit of McCain Feingold, say activist groups. But a caution is the
amount of money pouring into the Boston convention.

Despite McCain-Feingold, the Money Keeps Rolling
In

Published on December 21, 2003 - 11:24pm EST

Dean's method of fundraising
is within the spirit of McCain Feingold, say activist
groups. But a caution is the amount of money pouring
into the Boston convention.

Despite McCain-Feingold, the Money Keeps Rolling In

President
Theodore Roosevelt tried to improve it about a century ago. So did
President Harry Truman. Congress took a swing at in 1974. And last
year another bill addressing the same issue was signed by a U.S.
President. But yet again some are deeming it just an improvement
with no home run, even among its febrile creators. It is called
campaign finance reform and its flagship Bipartisan Campaign
Reform Act of 2002 (known as BCRA or McCain-Feingold), which
according to some is nigh to a failure. It is the perennial battle
against the use of money from particular groups or citizens,
especially corporate and union funds, to influence legislation
away from what may be the common good and toward those who provide
what is a de facto legal bribe. Often it is a campaign donor's
desire to place specific politicians on particular committees. The
candidates, ever eager for crucial money to win election, have
sought out alternative means not addressed by the recent law to
campaign and raise funds--and are doing so at record levels. When
one conduit of cash is closed, the candidates simply emphasize
other methods to try and satiate their insatiability. And this is
nothing new. As BCRA sponsor Rep. Christopher Shays (R-CT), tells
EVOTE.COM, "soft money became campaign money" because (direct)
corporate and union money were outlawed during the last century.
"Candidates are always looking for ways to circumvent the law,"
remarked Shays. The Federal Election Commission is "weakening" the
law by the way they are writing the BCRA (McCain-Feingold)
regulations. Commissioners of the FEC disagree as to whether the
commission's regulations are weakening McCain-Feingold. Up until
now, Shays says, "the law has worked well," but he warns, "the
jury is still out."

Politicians
Knew McCain-Feingold Would Not Work
The McCain-Feingold Bill may only have passed because the
politicians knew they could circumvent its intent-to end the
purchase and sale of politicians, to end political
corruption-which continues unabated. Some politicians believed
BCRA would later be ruled unconstitutional when they voted in
favor of it, thinking it would eventually be struck down by the
United States Supreme Court. (Many political observers were
staggered recently when the Supreme Court barely upheld key
components of BCRA, including its prohibition on some television
political advertising, some calling it a blatant stifling of free
speech.) Some politicians probably predicted key parts of
McCain-Feingold would be nullified, spurring them to vote in favor
of passage. This tactic has been long been used by American
politicians to obtain approval by the voters. It is a game they
continually play at both the state and federal level; passing
bills they believe in advance are unconstitutional. To reform the
campaign system, those who accept campaign funds must write a bill
that stops them from doing exactly what they want to continue
doing--to end the very process that helps get them continually
re-elected. And since the use of money has already been deemed by
the Supreme Court as a crucial part of free speech guaranteed by
the constitution, reforming campaigns has been made even more
difficult by the right to speak freely, a right politicians
ostensibly say they cherish.

Bush's stratospheric
fundraising has raised the stakes for Democrats hoping
for the nomination. (Kucinich doesn't count.)

BCRA
Components
Essentially BCRA completely bans soft money to the national
political parties. Unlimited contributions had been allowed
previously. It also permits a doubling to $2,000 individual
contributions to particular campaigns. McCain-Feingold also places
restrictions on outside groups from airing so-called "issue ads"
that tout or negatively criticize a candidate's position on any
issue, but refrains from explicitly telling viewers to vote for or
against that candidate. Groups may not use corporate and union
treasury money for these broadcast communications that mention a
Federal candidate within 60 days of a general election, or 30 days
of a primary, and are targeted at the candidate's electorate. But
unions and corporations can still finance these ads through their
Political Action Committees. According to Opensecrets.org,
President Bush, even without a primary challenger and until
recently enjoying high approval ratings, has raised upwards of $84
million, with a predicted stratospheric final total of $200
million. Dean now has $25 million and Kerry $20 million. Campaign
contributions levels in this post McCain-Feingold environment
could set new highs, with the use of the internet playing a major
fund-raising role, especially with Howard Dean. The former Vermont
governor raised the bulk of his contributions with a small $77
average contribution. Boyle says Dean's method to raise money is a
better way to do it, citing the paucity of extremely large
corporate or individual soft-money contributors typical of most
influential campaigns of years past. She adds that since the
number of contributors is high, with donations relatively low for
Dean's campaign, the folks providing the money represent a more
diverse electorate in terms of which direction they want the
candidate to vote, allowing him relatively more freedom from the
donor's wishes. Indeed, candidates that raise large sums in small
doses may not even know the reasons why some gave money to them at
all, which is not the case for those providing tens of thousands,
or millions of greenbacks, as is the case this year with Bush.

The Money
Keeps Pouring In
Mary Boyle, a spokesperson for Common Cause, a Washington
D.C.-based lobbying group that supports reducing campaign
donations from special-interests, says reform of the presidential
primaries is now needed, as candidates George Bush, Howard Dean
and John Kerry have declined matching public campaign funds that
would have capped their spending at $45 million. They became the
first significant modern presidential candidates to opt out and
aim for large amounts of private donations. So without a vote
cast, the 2004 election is already remarkable for beginning the
collapse of the Watergate-era restraints. We now have an
uninhibited money bazaar powered by gilt-edged fundraising
parties. Rep. Marty Meehan (D-MA), a BCRA sponsor, says the
presidential primary matching fund system is broken. He is
proposing campaign financing changes by sponsoring with others a
new bill.

The Check
Bundlers
According to Common Cause, corporate money is now pouring in to
the Bush campaign like water from a Roman aqueduct-exactly what
McCain-Feingold was supposed to curb--and what is most disturbing
is that it is totally legal. It demonstrates how ineffectual BCRA
is. And the name for this legal process, this expedient method of
avoiding campaign finance reform laws, is called bundling checks.
James H. 'Buck' Harless, founder and chairman of International
Industries of Gilbert, West Virginia is a check bundler. Starting
in 1999 he began enlisting his mining-industry good-ole-boys to
give to the Bush campaign. He gathered the checks together and
gave his good friend $355,000. In return Harless received new
markets for his coal. Then there is Steven Letbetter, former chief
executive officer of Reliant Resources of Houston, Texas. He also
bundled checks together worth a total of $213,000 from his
corporate buddies and gave it to Bush. Companies like the one he
represented were seeking a favorable energy bill. In another case,
Frederick L. Webber, former president of the American Chemistry
Council of Arlington Virginia, gave Bush $221,000 for favorable
legislation. There is also A.R. "Tony" Sanchez, owner of Sanchez
Oil & Gas Corporation of Laredo, Texas, who gave $100,000 for
Bush's support. Those who show up and deliver large amounts of
bundled checks get special treatment, says Boyle of Common Cause.
And the deluge is not just for Bush, but he may be leading. For
the first six months of this year, the Republican National
Committee and House and Senate GOP campaign committees together
raised $139 million, while the Democrats gathered $56 million. By
comparison, in the same period of the last presidential election
cycle, the elephants raised $66 million to the donkeys $38 million
� definitely something's been reformed here. Staff members of both
Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Russ Feingold (D-WI) are so
embarrassed by this situation they refuse to answer any questions
about their bill. But listen to how Scott Harshbarger, the former
president of Common Cause, refers to McCain-Feingold about the
time it became law. According to him, the bill is the second
coming of Christ. "By signing McCain-Feingold, President Bush has
recognized the need to end the worst abuse in our political
system," said Harshbarger. Scott "Mr. Reform" Harshbarger goes on
to say, "Americans have won an historic victory to help bring our
government back to the people. After years of debate, the Senate
has voted resoundingly, 60-40, to end the most corrupting part of
our system."

Guess who maintains 527
committees? Yup, most of the Democrats running for
President of the U.S.

It's Not
Just the Size of Campaign War Chests
But if you think the buying and selling of politicians stops with
simple donations, think again. In this post McCain-Feingold
environment, new ways to influence campaigns are now being
emphasized. Think of the number 527, as in the sometimes obscure
tax-exempt groups known by an Internal Revenue Service code as 527
committees. These 527s are allowed huge campaign reporting
advantages. They are reaping an increasing fortune in political
cash even with the ban on certain interest-group ads days before
elections. Some experts such as Chris Shays say that soft money
that would have flowed to political parties now replete the bank
accounts of 527s or 501s. These include 527s such as the
labor-supported Partnership for America's Families and the
pharmaceutical-industry backed United Seniors Association.
Democrat investor George Soros has pledged to raise $10 million
for one such group determined to defeat George Bush's re-election
bid. And tracking the sources and uses of 527 money is quite
difficult. "Due to their unique legal status, 527 committees are
almost totally free from fund-raising restrictions while still
being able to engage in just about any election-related activity
short of contributing to federal candidates," states the
Washington D.C.- based Center for Public Integrity in a July
report. Upwards of $430 million have been spent by 527s during the
past three years. Just 22 of the groups raised upwards of $3.3
million within the first few months of 2003. Among the more famous
527 groups include Emily's List of Washington D.C. which promotes
pro-abortion Democratic women candidates and the Republican and
Democratic governors associations. Four presidential candidates,
U.S. Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-MO), Sens. John Edwards (D-NC), Bob
Graham (D-FL), and John Kerry (D-MA) all maintain 527 committees.
Kerry's Citizen Soldier Fund gave upwards of $256,000 to party
groups and candidates in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina,
all early presidential primary battlegrounds. And the tax-exempt
pro-Republican Committee for Justice has run television
commercials attacking Edwards. Part of its money to pay for the
ads was raised at the home of George Bush number one. These
self-described "independent" organizations from both sides of the
political aisle are stepping in to fill the vacuum from the
reduction of soft-money going to the national political parties.
Rep. John L. Mica (R-FL) has called the growth of the 527s "the
greatest threat to the federal election process we have ever
seen."

Conventions
are Involved Too
And Shays says soft money is flowing into next year's
presidential-nominating conventions in Boston and New York too,
yet another method to avoid McCain-Feingold regulations.
Corporations and well-heeled donors are allowed to write million
dollar checks to defray the expenses of the conventions; or should
I call them wine-fueled propaganda parties. Organizers are
offering 'sponsorships' to businesses with a $1 million asking
price for one in particular. A donation of $100,000 to Boston's
gets you a breakfast with the nominee and "a chance to help shape
the national political agenda." The Campaign Finance Institute at
George Washington University in Washington D.C. estimates that
upwards of $64 million will be contributed to Boston's convention.
U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) has taken a particular interest in
raising money for his hometown convention.

Sanctimonious
Reformers?
Even the 'champions' of reform are doing an end-run around the new
laws. The President of Common Cause, Chellie Pingree, is facing
allegations that she violated federal election laws in her
Democratic race for the US Senate last year. In her unsuccessful
bid to unseat Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), Pingree invited donors to
circumvent the limits on campaign contributions. She is the target
of an FEC audit, and election law specialists say at least one of
her solicitations was illegal. Even Rep. Marty Meehan, a vehement
supporter of campaign finance reform, had more than $1.8 million
stashed away in his campaign war chest as of June 30, putting him
at number six of all congressional incumbents with the most cash
available.

[John Pike is a veteran journalist
based in Boston. His articles have appeared in numerous magazines,
newspapers and web sites, including the Boston Globe, Reason
Magazine and Insight Magazine. He is now trying to figure out the
best way to give as much money as possible to his favorite
candidate so he can obtain a lucrative government job. ]